Possible AIDS cure found

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: aidanjm
frankly, I can't see any decent science coming out of Brigham Young University.

Is there some actual logical reason for this feeling, or is it simply because it is owned and operated by the LDS church?

they are renowned for their shonky science. e.g., giving homosexual people electric shocks or forcing them to vomit to "cure" homosexuality. It's hardly the kind of institution that attracts high calibre researchers.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: aidanjm
frankly, I can't see any decent science coming out of Brigham Young University.

Is there some actual logical reason for this feeling, or is it simply because it is owned and operated by the LDS church?

The fact that it is owned by the LDS church is a logical reason for the feeling.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Researchers, including a BYU scientist,

With BYU involved, I would've thought the cure would be don't have gay sex.
[/b]

Regardless of what the mod thinks, I found it hillarious. The funniest thing I have read all day. Of course most people aren't aware of their experiments to cure homosexuality using electrodes applied to the genitals.

Thanks Dawg, needed the laugh.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Funny Yes, however, the second phrase was uncalled for

Mod

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: BDawg

Researchers, including a BYU scientist,

With BYU involved, I would've thought the cure would be don't have gay sex.
[/b]

Regardless of what the mod thinks, I found it hillarious. The funniest thing I have read all day. Of course most people aren't aware of their experiments to cure homosexuality using electrodes applied to the genitals.

Thanks Dawg, needed the laugh.

I thought it was funny too (duh ). I think the mod is being way too overly sensitive in this instance. People need thicker skin. Espescially when so many "religious" people say things like AIDS is God's plague on homosexuals and that the best way to keep keeps from getting pregnant is through abstinance (in practice, not in theory).

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: aidanjm
frankly, I can't see any decent science coming out of Brigham Young University.

Is there some actual logical reason for this feeling, or is it simply because it is owned and operated by the LDS church?

they are renowned for their shonky science. e.g., giving homosexual people electric shocks or forcing them to vomit to "cure" homosexuality. It's hardly the kind of institution that attracts high calibre researchers.

The last I checked, in the 60's and 70's, that was a type of treatment offered by most places, not simply BYU. And as I also recall, it was not mandatory at BYU, whereas it was at different locations.

Fact is, whether you like BYU or not, it is a well respected university in many areas of schooling and ranks in the top 75 of the country for overall education. I'm not a big fan of the university myself, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a very credible institution. You may have problems with it, but those are your problems, not BYU's.

 

[Meuge]

All of my explanations have been supplanted by the discussing of whether or not BYU should be a credible institution after they used torture to "cure" homosexuality. Can we get back on topic, heh.

 

[engineereeyore]

Oh, I'm sorry Meuge. I was actually one of the ones that asked for the explanation. I do appreciate you taking the time to give it. Still trying to digest and understand everything so I don't say something stupid about your reply. My brother's a doctor and I learn early on not to have discussion with him unless you knew what you were talking about.

From what I've read, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I hope you're wrong. Cause your argument sounds pretty solid, which would kind of dampen the whole idea of getting rid of AIDS. But I'll admit, I haven't made it all the way through yet, so maybe there is a happy ending.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Oh, I'm sorry Meuge. I was actually one of the ones that asked for the explanation. I do appreciate you taking the time to give it. Still trying to digest and understand everything so I don't say something stupid about your reply. My brother's a doctor and I learn early on not to have discussion with him unless you knew what you were talking about.

From what I've read, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I hope you're wrong. Cause your argument sounds pretty solid, which would kind of dampen the whole idea of getting rid of AIDS. But I'll admit, I haven't made it all the way through yet, so maybe there is a happy ending.

If I used too much lingo or a concept you're unfamiliar with, I'm sorry. Please feel free to ask - especially now that I am in a lab, I spend pretty much all of my time with specialists, and have begun to lose the ability to reduce scientific arguments to something understandable by those who are not in the field.

 

[torkd]

Megue:

the wikipedia article found here: ceragenins

describes more of a soap-like particle that disrupts negatively charged pathogenic membranes (sounds like it incorporates into it via hydrophobic interactions after getting close to it via electrostatic attraction).

A simplified idea, but maybe a "soap" that you can put in your body; it will clean up the bugs but spare positively charged host (human, animal, etc.) cells. haha. Quite a novel approach -ridiculously simple. I wish I would have thought of it.

I really doubt it will be tested on humans anytime soon. gotta test it on animals first.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: torkd
Megue:

the wikipedia article found here: ceragenins

describes more of a soap-like particle that disrupts negatively charged pathogenic membranes (sounds like it incorporates into it via hydrophobic interactions after getting close to it via electrostatic attraction).

A simplified idea, but maybe a "soap" that you can put in your body; it will clean up the bugs but spare positively charged host (human, animal, etc.) cells. haha. Quite a novel approach -ridiculously simple. I wish I would have thought of it.

I really doubt it will be tested on humans anytime soon. gotta test it on animals first.

The great thing about Wikipedia, is that anyone can edit it. Given the text of the article, and it's high similarity to the news-pieces that are sited, I would conclude that the authors wrote the wikipedia article themselves.

I'll read the journal article though. But you know, I won't hold my breath, given that having published just one article for a discovery which they speculate could be so useful, makes it look like nothing but hype.

 

[trevinom]

Originally posted by: torkd
Megue:

the wikipedia article found here: ceragenins

describes more of a soap-like particle that disrupts negatively charged pathogenic membranes (sounds like it incorporates into it via hydrophobic interactions after getting close to it via electrostatic attraction).

A simplified idea, but maybe a "soap" that you can put in your body; it will clean up the bugs but spare positively charged host (human, animal, etc.) cells. haha. Quite a novel approach -ridiculously simple. I wish I would have thought of it.

I really doubt it will be tested on humans anytime soon. gotta test it on animals first.

/:music:
You gotta wash that AIDS right out of your hair.
/:music:

 

[torkd]

I've found wikipedia to be a really good source for overview material. It's definitely not a Harrison's or Merck Manual, but I've actually found it to be generally correct. I wouldn't trust it to write a thesis, but I have used it in the past to give me a decent synopsis of a subject.

At this point, I don't think it would be prudent to argue about whether it would work or not, I was just pointing out my interpretation of the compound's mechanism and its novelty.